“I have to pay not only my own premium but I have to subsidize everybody else,” she said.

That's exactly the situation today, prior to the total enactment of health care reform, as those who already have insurance end up paying for those without, who must depend on (expensive) emergency room care.

Exactly correct. So now we will subsidize even more and pay even higher rates.

I am sorry but you deserve this. Are you fucking stupid?

If we already subsidize 100% of a persons health care costs how can we subsidize more tham 100%? We already pay for all the health care costs that occur in the USA. It's built into our health insurance premiums.

If the total revenue of the health industry is $1 it doesn't matter what we call it or how we pay it still is $1.

If Fred down the street doesn't have health insurance and goes to the ER, that treatment he doesn't pay raises my rates. So personally I would rather "give" Fred health insurance for 2% of my rate rather than get nothing from Fred at all.

Call it Obamacare, call it Romneycare, call it the plan that the Hertiage Foundation thought of to make free-loaders pay for at least a portion of their health costs. It doesn't matter, "we" pay the same.

HawkHead wrote:If we already subsidize 100% of a persons health care costs how can we subsidize more tham 100%? We already pay for all the health care costs that occur in the USA. It's built into our health insurance premiums.

I am sorry but you deserve this. Are you fucking stupid? Rates have not, and will not, stay the same.

Grade school math. 100% of a $2000 premium is $2000. We know without doubt that premiums are going up more. Lets say they go up by half, and half of that because of Obamacare. Well 100% if that $2000 premium in increased by half is $3000.

$1000 more in healthcare premium cost, $500 because of greed, $500 because of govt takeover.

Your grade school math is sound, it's just not at all attached to the realities of health care. But hey, you believe Obamacare is going to increase health care costs regardless of all factual evidence and any study done on the matter.

More like grade school analysis on your part. You have nothing to back this up other than an article that quotes insurance companies saying your rates will go up because of ACA. How delightfully trustworthy they are.

HawkHead wrote:If we already subsidize 100% of a persons health care costs how can we subsidize more tham 100%? We already pay for all the health care costs that occur in the USA. It's built into our health insurance premiums.

I am sorry but you deserve this. Are you fucking stupid? Rates have not, and will not, stay the same.

Grade school math. 100% of a $2000 premium is $2000. We know without doubt that premiums are going up more. Lets say they go up by half, and half of that because of Obamacare. Well 100% if that $2000 premium in increased by half is $3000.

$1000 more in healthcare premium cost, $500 because of greed, $500 because of govt takeover.

Sorry, but truth isn't on your side.

Per this article, 12.8 million Americans got $1.1 billion in health care rebates thanks to the ACA that states a certain percentage of the premiums has to go and actual support health care and not profits.

HawkHead wrote:If we already subsidize 100% of a persons health care costs how can we subsidize more tham 100%? We already pay for all the health care costs that occur in the USA. It's built into our health insurance premiums.

I am sorry but you deserve this. Are you fucking stupid? Rates have not, and will not, stay the same.

Grade school math. 100% of a $2000 premium is $2000. We know without doubt that premiums are going up more. Lets say they go up by half, and half of that because of Obamacare. Well 100% if that $2000 premium in increased by half is $3000.

$1000 more in healthcare premium cost, $500 because of greed, $500 because of govt takeover.

Sorry, but truth isn't on your side.

Per this article, 12.8 million Americans got $1.1 billion in health care rebates thanks to the ACA that states a certain percentage of the premiums has to go and actual support health care and not profits.

Of course our resident idiot will now retort that eventhough prices are going up more slowly since the passage of the ACA they would be going up even MORE slowly if the ACA hadn't passed because ....... she has no prove but is just sure it must be the case. (And somebody told her to say it.)

Sandi wrote:I used to sell insurance but quit because I couldn't lie to my friends and live with myself. So I know what a scheme insurance is.

You, my dearest, are lying.

-Dan Motor

No your taking a wild guess without a clue, and few brains cells to process it if you did. Keep up the insults and I will play the game your way, but it would be nicer to have an adult discussion.

Actually I sold for Mutual of New York ( MONY ) back in the 1960s. However do admit that I sold mostly life.

Oh Sandi, let's play a game. I'm going to assume for a moment you aren't lying (although you are).

Let's say that your short incarnation as a Life Insurance Salesman took place shortly after 1961 when Roger Hull took over. Let's also say for the sake of argument that this was not your first job out of high school - say 21 years old?

So, being 21 years old in 1961 by my "grade school math" would put you squarely in your early 70's. So maybe we are approaching this in the wrong way. Is your problem with a "Romneycare" style universal healthcare system that you unhappy with your current government subsidized health care coverage under Medicare? Or is it (the most likely answer) that you don't want all those other slackers to get the same benefits you have without having to work as hard as you did?

Why don’t we start there Sandi, my boy, and maybe we can get your actual argument against universal healthcare and you can stop trying to use statistics and “evidence” you obviously don’t understand.

Sandi wrote:No your taking a wild guess without a clue, and few brains cells to process it if you did.

If you're going to insult someone else's intelligence, I highly recommend that you learn the difference between "your" and "you're." Here's a quick lesson: You're a fucking idiot, because your grammar is no better than my dog's.

C'mon. Learn English. You meant "you're" which is short for you are. Your is an entirely different animal. My dog doesn't know the difference either but she's so cute I don't care. Besides, she's a dog.